> On Jun 26, 5:02 pm, SkyEyes
cox.net> wrote:> On Jun 26, 2:19 pm, lsend...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Jun 25, 5:37 pm, Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:>
>>>> If the theory of evolution is based upon some observables like,
>>>> mutation,
>
>>> ALL, as in ALL, mutations are loss of genetic info and almost always
>>> leads to a lower life.
>
>> Cite, please? I do not believe this is accurate. Please provide
>> scientific references.
>
> NO! You provide me with observable and documented beneficial
> mutation.
Testy, are we? Feeling the pressure? Unable to put your money where
your mouth is?
Your refusal to cite an authority leads me to believe that there is
none. Prove me wrong by citing one. If you don't, I'll be forced to
conclude that you're parroting bullshit.
As for your challenge, I'll happily give you one: Richard Lenski has,
over the last ~20 or so years, documented the evolution of a strain of
E.coli bacteria able to digest citrate, something that the ancestral
population was not able to do. Here is a link to the New Science
article:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary...
And if you want to read about how badly the creationists are handling
the news, here's a link to the Conservipedia article, complete with
Lenski's responses to Andy Schlafly:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog
If you want another instance, consider the newly-evolved ability of
Flavobacterium, Sp. K172 to eat nylon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase
> Shouldn't be hard are many HS and college text books
> still repeat the same examples which were proven wrong more than
> a 100 yrs ago in some instances.
Both examples I've provided are quite recent.
> But evolution is a religion and
> it must keep up its mantra.
Nope, evolution, unlike your unevidenced god-thingy, requires no
worship. It's just how life operates. When new data comes in,
science changes its theories to fit the data. When new data comes in,
religion suppresses it so as to avoid having to change its dogma.
That's why evolution isn't a religion.
> Read Pierre-Paul Grasse, "Evolution of Living Organisms" p. 88.
> "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not
> produce any kind of evolution." i.e. mutation merely rearranges
> existing genetic information but never increases its complexity.>
Fucking *excuse* me??? That book was written in 1977! Do you have
the faintest grasp of how far science has come and how much we've
learned since 1977??? No, of *course* you don't. We've got
a whole new discipline we didn't have back then: it's called
"genetics." Grasse might sing an entirely different tune if he were
alive today, but unfortunately, he died over 20 years ago, in 1985.
*Do* try to keep up with the times, will you?
>>> has found a bottleneck in the gene
>>> pool that dates back to roughly 6,000 yrs ago. Just about the
>>> time of Noah's universal flood.
>
>> That's flat *wrong*. The bottleneck was ~70,000 years ago, not
>> 6,000. Stop parroting the [wrong] information your fundy handlers
>> spoonfeed you and fucking LOOK THINGS UP.
>
> dido.
"Dido"? What does "dido" mean??? How about addressing your major
informational fuckup about the human genetic bottleneck (by a mere
64,000 years)?
> Also, the genome project up dated its nucleotide difference
> from
> 1.6 %% to 4 %% about a year ago. I'm sure they have raised it even
> further by now. But even 1.6%% difference calculates out to roughly
> 48,000,000 nucleotides and a change of even 3 is fatal.
Cite, please? If you've read it on the human genome project's web
site, then doubtedly you'll be able to provide a reference. You don't
get to just pull this stuff out of your ass, you know.
> Evolution does not even qualify as a theory but a metaphysical
> research program.>
Yes, actually, it *does* qualify as a theory, as there are mountains
of evidence that support it. It is falsifiable, and it makes useful
predictions. It explains *all* the data, and in the last 150 years
nobody - not even your precious creationist handlers - have come up
with any evidence refuting it. Unfortunately, you're too brainwashed
and uneducated to understand that.
>>> cough! Theory. That is why, despite huge fundings and
>>> experiments in high energy physics, we've only managed
>>> to evolve from steady state, to big bang and now possibly
>>> moving onto some sort of string theory. Models and
>>> perhaps theories but nothing beyond that.
>
>> In science - nay, in *all* of academia, the word "theory" does NOT
>> mean "wild-ass guess scribbled on the back of a cocktail napkin after
>> three beers." It means "a comprehensive explanation for a phenomenon
>> that takes into account *all* the data currently known."
>
> a theory is just that, a hypothesis.
From
www.dictionary.com:
the·o·ry –noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of
explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of
relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in
contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as
reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging
to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or
methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the
method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
Please take particular notice of definition #1.
> It is not grounded in empirical knowledge.
Ah, but it *is*. I've provided cites. You haven't. And you've got
the small problem created by the existence of thousands of scientists
who say that evolution *is* scientific theory. Oh, you've got a few
dead ones who claim that evolution can't work, but you don't have
anybody who is alive and has degrees in the relevant fields who says
it can't.
Too bad for you.
> It is speculative in nature. It proposes
> that X is true and then sets about to prove it as best as it
> can.
Evolution is a fact: it has been observed both in the lab *and* in the
wild. Evolutionary theory is the explanation of how evolution works
in nature. And we have data backing it up.
What do you have? You have a book of Bronze Age mythology written by
goat-herders that says a Magick Being did all of it.
No, thanks. I'll take science anyday. Science works whether you
believe in it or not.
>
> But herein lies the major deficiency of "science" or "academia"
> it cannot raise up or put forth either an absolute (Law of nature)
That science has any absolute laws is an obsolete idea. But then you
wouldn't know that, would you, because you haven't got a decent
education and are prone to magical thinking.
> or a transcendental ethic.
It isn't the job of science to put forth a transcendental ethic, you
dumb shit. Science is only in the business of determining how the
universe works. That's all. You want transcendental ethic? Go take
a philosophy class.
> All it can put forth is a statistical
> average and then claim, "We're pretty sure about this as we've
> never seen the contrary."
Yes. Science does not deal in proofs, and only weaklings need them.
I have never seen anything fall up, and I'm pretty sure that I never
will. That's good enough for me, as is the theory of gravity, which
explains pretty well *why* things never fall up.
>> *Theories* explain *phenomena*.
>
> Explain energy for us. Just what is it and where does it
> come from our thermodynamic "laws" stand contrary to
> this mechanical universe being some kind of self replicating
> perpetual machine.
The universe is nowhere claimed to be a self-replicating perpetual
machine, so reign in your rhetoric. The thermodynamics laws are
usually invoked in the context of biological evolution. So: explain
what law of thermodynamics is violated by evolution. Quote the law,
then explain, in as much detail as you care to provide, exactly *how*
biological evolution violates it. Put your explanation here:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
>>Something can be a fact and a theory
>> simultaneously. Ever hear of "music *theory*?" It's the explanation
>> of how the *fact* of music works. Ever hear of "germ *theory* of
>> disease"? It's the explanation of how germs, which are real, factual
>> things, cause diseases. Gravity is another thing that is both a fact
>> and a theory, as is electricity.
>
>> The theory of evolution explains the observed *fact* that life forms
>> evolve. Suck it up and deal.
>
> The model of evolution can't even distinquish chemical from stellar
> evolution in the order of sequence.
I am not arguing cosmology. I'm talking about biological evolution.
Please try to stick to the topic under discussion.
Evolutionary THEORY (and I'll believe the thousands upon thousands of
scientists who say it *is* a valid theory as opposed to believing your
screed, Sparky) explains the observed FACT that living populations
change over time.
> Chicken or the egg. There is
> NO evidence for cosmic, chemical, stellar, organic or macro evolution.
Cupcake, there's so much evidence for biological evolution it'll make
your head spin. That is, if you ever decide to get an education and
take a real science class or crack a science book.
> This is sheer metaphysical hyperbole and yet a hyperbole that is
> granted the status of unquestionable truth.
Science doesn't deal with "truth." Science deals with facts.
> Look at radio carbon dating. It's like the god of dating standard and
> yet how often is it noted that equilibrium has not yet been reached
> on this planet as it is still forming at a rate in or around 30%%
> faster
> than it is decaying.
Carbon dating is only one of about 19 methods of dating materials.
It's *far* from being the gold standard, particularly since you can
only use it to date organic materials that are less than about 100,000
years old.
Here's your problem: your arguments are so out of date and your
material so flawed that you wouldn't know a scientific fact if it sat
in your lap and called you Momma.
I say again: GET A FUCKING EDUCATION.
>
> Evolution pretends to explain something but when closely studied,
> it only brings more questions and unresolved dilemma's.
Science *always* results in more questions. That's what makes it fun,
you never run out of things to apply science to.
> The universe evidences order and design and the very presuppositions
> of scientific investigation is founded upon this principle.
Design? Like the fact that the human skeleton is that of a quadruped
yanked upright, resulting in back problems and foot ailments? (Not to
mention the difficulties it presents to pregnant human females.) That
kind of design and order? If that looks like "design" to you, please
don't take up the occupation of bridge-building, okay? What it looks
like is the type of kludgy result that a mindless, repetitive process
(like evolution) would come up with.
Or how about the digestive tract of horses? They eat fibrous roughage
that requires a fermentation chamber in the gut to digest it
properly. Other grass eating animals, like cows, have these
fermentation chambers as their "first stomachs," which allows the
animal to ferment the roughage, then regurgitate and re-chew it, after
which it goes into a second stomach where digestion proceeds apace.
*Horses*, however, have the fermentation chamber *at the end of the
gut*, so that they cannot regurgitate and re-digest the food. Thus
vast amounts of nutrients are lost (that animals like cows can
extract) and horses must eat large amounts to sustain life. Are you
talking about *that* kind of design? Because as design goes, it's
pretty crappy. It's exactly the kind of thing you'd expect to see
from a process lacking a will or an intention, but if an intelligent
being did it, well, it's just flat inexcusable. Any being who
designed horse digestion is not worthy of being worshipped, no matter
how many magical powers it has.
And how about those wasps that lay eggs in living caterpillar larvae?
Is that the kind of "design" you're talking about? The wasps lay
their eggs in the larvae, and the eggs hatch and eat the caterpillar
to death from the inside out. Pretty gruesome. Any being who
designed *that* on purpose is a real sicko. A far better explanation
is that the wasps and the moths from which the caterpillars come co-
evolved.
I can go on like this all day, but by now even *you* must get my
drift.
There *is* no design in nature. "Looks designed" does not equal "is
designed." When you start looking below the surface, all the design
arguments fall apart.
> There
> never
> has been a theory, let alone an answer to the question of the many and
> the one, unity in the midst of the diversity.... except one. The
> unity
> and diversity within the Triunity of the Godhead. Christianity
> separates
> itself from ALL other faiths at this juncture. You'll have to search
> hard
> but you will only find the occassional triadic divinity but until the
> revelation of Jesus Christ, there was simply no resolve to the
> dilemma.
Babble, babble, babble. I was raised a christian fundamentalist, and
this sounds like babble even to me.
I see it's not just your science education that's sorely lacking. You
also don't have any grasp of history or comparative religion. *Man*,
but I wish you'd just give it up and go back to school. You're
positively tiresome.
Get something straight: there's not one iota of *evidence* that any
god exists, including yours. Furthermore, there's not one iota of
*evidence* that Yeshua bin Yussef (the character you refer to as
"Jesus Christ") ever existed. The character of Yeshua was probably
amalgamated from that of several itinerant jewish preachers wo lived
in the first century. However, "Christ" was not Yeshua. "Christ" was
the central figure in a mystery cult promulgated by Paul of Tarsus, a
Hellenized jew who was familiar with the Greek mystery religions and
who wanted a jewish version of one.
>>>> he convicts
>>>> himself out of the gate. He must show that mutations and the strong
>>>> evidence for mutation rates is not possible or highly unlikely,
>
>>> What like the black and white moth fiasco which is still be taught as
>>> proof of beneficial genetic mutation when it was all a hoax (lie). I
>>> suppose you're going to bring up whale feet next.
>
>> Actually, the peppered moth example was *not* a lie,
>
> Yuk! Yuk! Yuk! Oh, you crack me up!
Then please point to a peer-reviewed paper by a mainstream scientist
that exposes the peppered moth example as a "lie."
>> nor is the fact that whales have hip bones.
>
> Hardy, har har har. Those aren't hip bones. You know, God gave
> you a brain to use. Those are little bones are required for
> reproduction.
Please provide a cite to a peer-reviewed paper by a reputable
mainstream scientist that says this.
> Never had anatomy I guess.
Acutally, I've had 4 semesters of college-level biology and zoology.
Quite a bit of anatomy was involved.
> And I suppose that you're going to try
> that old trick of mentioning that all embryos have gills slits.
They have pharyngeal arches, which are not the same thing as gill
slits. I suppose that next *you* are going to start screaming that
Haeckel's embryos are still published in modern American textbooks,
aren't you? You creationist liars are really fond of that particular
calumny.
>
>> Nor is the fact that both humans and chimps have traces of an a
>> retrovirus that affects only apes in our DNA. The traces occur at the
>> same point in both sequences, and is a BIG FUCKING CLUE that humans
>> and chimps split off from a common ancestor. That's called *data*,
>> godboy.
>
> The probablity of just one (1) DNA arranging its own sequence by
> chance is equal probability to 1 chance in 10 to the 119,000 power.
> Compare that to the entire universe being around 10 to the 28th
> inches in diameter. Humans are closer to tobacco than chimps
> in chromosome count.
Cite, please? I'd particularly like a cite vis-a-vis your probability
quote. Unless and until you can provide one, I call bullshit.
And a little hint about the chromosome count in chimps and humans.
Google "Chromosome 2" and "telomere." See what you find.
>
>>>> and I
>>>> would welcome that challenge. As for Newton
>
>>> a born again Christian who believed in a literal interpretation
>>> of the Genesis record.
>
>> Oh, you fatuous idiot, you. Newton was a type of
>> believer, but he wasn't any sort of christian that you would
>> recognize.
>
> Really. Shows how much you have actually read his theology.
I'll wager I've read more Newton than *you* have. Newton was raised
Church of England, another term for which is "Anglo-Catholic." When
Newton died, he had a large collection of books on his shelves that
taught an anti-trinitarian doctrine called Socinianism. Newton was
clearly *not* a conventional trinitarian-christian, but more of a
deist.
Yet another piece of fundy propaganda that doesn't stand up to the
test of evidence. You *really* need to study up.
>> Go actually *read* Newton's stuff, and then read the books
>> that he owned. He was a quirky kind of deist at best. The last thing
>> he was is a "born again christian."
>
> Deism came later. Don't you know even that much?
Look up "Socinianism." And I never said that Newton was a card-
carrying deist, I said he was a "quirky kind of deist." Don't confuse
formal Deism with the religious conviction that some magical being
created the cosmos and then went away - that has been around for all
of human history using various labels.
>
>> You need to do your homework before you post this crap here, Sparky.
>> Some of us actually *have* educations.
>
> You haven't proven that to me so far. And beside, academia
> is a closed system. It claims to be open, but it isn't. Just try
> to get a real professor to debate a creationist.
You know, I've been to a lot of creationist-scientific debates, and I
*know* why academics don't like to debate creationists. Creationists
think "debate" means "shout people down." They don't *do* actual
debate - they just keep endlessly repeating, more and more loudly,
their fatuous, evidence-free arguments. Of *course* academics don't
like that kind of circus. It has nothing to do with who has the real,
hard evidence - the scientists do. But the creationists have an
agenda to push, and they're gonna push it as loudly and obnoxiously as
they can.
> Hen's teeth.
Interesting you bring up hen's teeth! A couple of years ago,
scientists were able to tinker with live chicken embryos and get them
to grow teeth. You see, birds evolved from therapsid dinosaurs, which
had teeth. The gene for teeth is present in chickens, and probably in
all birds, but it's switched off. Google "epigenetics."
Thank you for the opportunity to provide *yet another* piece of
evidence for evolution.
>And
> try to get a debate at governmentally funded research facility.
> Impossible. Closed system, closed doors, closed minds.
The government isn't in the business of funding religion, and that's
all creation science/intelligent design *is*.
Here's the thing: if you guys claim you're right and science is
wrong, then start coming up with experiements and the data they
produce. Formulate a Theory of Intelligent Design, which *nobody* -
not the Institute for Creation Research, not the Discovery Institute,
NOBODY - has yet done. The best they can come up with is "well, it
*looks* designed...."
That's all you have to do. Do that, and your side will get a place at
the table.
But you can't do that, can you? Because all you have is a musty old
book of mythology and the fear that if every word in it isn't true,
that you won't get everlasting life. That's all you've got. Myths
and threats.
>
> I will say this however, the last decade of my employment at
> a world class research facility, many more scientist where
> entertaining the concept of "god" and even a few bantered
> about a Creator. But if one does much more, you're drummed
> out of the corps rather quickly.
If you've got *any* evidence that *any* god exists, please produce
it. Otherwise, put a sock in it.
It's all about the evidence, Sugarbritches. And you don't have any.
>
>>>> every aspect of evolution
>>>> is based upon identical kinds of observations and explainations. This
>>>> guy should not have dared post in alt.philosophy for he shall be
>>>> grilled alive.
>>>> In science, a theory is an explanation.
>
>>> It is a model that needs to be tested.
>
>> And evolution *has* been tested, for the last 150 years. So far
>> there's *no* data that contradicts evolutionary theory.
>
> Now this is the biggest laugh of them all. There's NO data
> that supports it. Were are all the transitional forms?
I'm not a transitional form, because I have no children. Anyone who
has offspring *is* a transitional form, whether you like the notion or
not.
> Why
> is there no delta at the bottom of the Grand Canyon.
Why should there be? Geology is *not* my forte, but given your
pathetic performance so far, I'm betting I can answer your argument,
whatever it may be.
> And
> if the canyon is millions of years old, since when did water
> begin traversing up hill. From where the river enters the
> canyon to where it exits, the ridge line is nearly a mile
> high. And where is the erosion between sedimentary
> layers? Why do we find things like trees and inverted
> whales petrified and vertical through 3 or 4 geological
> layers? etc etc etc
Oh, dear. In the face of such invincible ignorance, I hardly know
where to start. Let me just say this: even *I* know that land rises
and falls in response to the movement of techtonic plates. Just
because the entrance of the Canyon is higher *now*, doesn't mean it
was at that level several million years ago. Add geology to the list
of things you need to study up on.
The series Nature on PBS just did a whole one-hour documentary on the
Grand Canyon. It's available for download at
www.pbs.org.
> BTW, explain to me how a trilobite can be found in the
> oldest limestone layer yet have the most complex eye
> yet discovered?
Sorry, Sparky, but nothing in evolutionary theory says that early life
forms *couldn't* have highly developed features. Eyes evolved many
times and in many different forms, and since they provide such a
startling evolutionary advantage, it isn't a stretch to think that
they can evolve quite quickly. That trilobites had extremely complex
eyes is, therefore, pretty unremarkable.
But you can explain to me why your magical sky-being designed humans
to have faulty eyes with the optic nerve running through the retina
(and thereby creating a blind spot) if you'd like. I'd *love* to hear
your explanation for that.
> Explain to me how the largest dinosaur ever discovered
> had a nostril opening only as large as a present day
> horse?
And this is a problem for evolution...how, exactly?
> Can't believe in a Designer? Read NATURE, oct '94,
> "Very Fast Flagellar Rotation" article. How can a hair
> on a bacteria rotate up to 100,000 RPM when the smaller
> you get the greater the viscosity. Oh, btw, you could
> fit 8,000,000 of them on a cross section of a human
> hair.
>
> This sort of complexity far exceeds the probability
> of Websters International Dictionary "evolving" in
> perfect type set if you dropped a 10,000 bomb on
> a print shop. Bacterial hairs have bearings, rotors
> and stator blades. Think of that the next time you
> fly on a jet and think how impressive human
> achievement is.
Sorry, Dumpling, but there's no such thing as "irreducible
complexity." The bacterial flagellum has been done to *death*. It
was featured in the Dover, Pennsylvania School Board lawsuit settled
back in 2005 (Google Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Education).
Everything from the bacterial flagellum to the immune system that has
been touted as "irreducibly complex" has been shown not to be.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
